there is the professional world of warcraft power leveling here. welcome.

or burnt, to our beech log. most And grapes, berries. wasn't at one night, in a hollow came the forests The hollow I remember decay year along

Perfect work!Keep posting
forex trading system day

Perfect work!Keep posting
forex trading system day

Perfect work!Keep posting
forex trading system day

"All I want is a simple majority to say who wins and who loses. Not in just the caucuses and primaries, but also in the National Election coming on November 4th."

wELL. YOUR A REPUBLCAIN. You don't need to follow laws. you are exempt. Write the laws your self and submit them. See where your opinion gets ya.

One simple question. Why does the United States keep "supporting" any country in the Middle East? Why is the United States the world Policeman? F**K THEM ALL. Since the end of World War II, how many American service personnel have died behind keeping the "PEACE" in the Middle East. Let us not forget the Marine barracks in Lebanon, during the Regean years and before that the USS Liberty, during the 1972 War, just to name two. Let Go and Let God, and the US is not GOD, or whatever one want to call "IT".

I understand most people will not see this but I will write anyway.

The reason why people in the United States have no faith in the voting process, is that elite politicians have the opportunity to choose the person who will run for president in this country. After that, a system that allows the majority vote to not actually matter due an old and failed system of appropriating Electoral votes based on population that can be won by a simple majority in each state.

Miraculously, people are so fed up with the current government that they are willing to go out and participate in primaries and caucuses. If the Clinton's and the Nevada Democratic Party can not let the system that voters thought they were voting for work, then what is the point of voting? Why should I caucus on February 5th, if it does not really matter anyway? It is probably the only time I will be able actually have a vote in how this country is run.

Here in Kansas, it is generally going to the Republicans. A simple majority win gives the candidate the electoral votes. At least the delegate system that I, and probably many people, thought was nice, in that at least the delegates were appropriated by the percentage of votes that the candidate won.

Now that I know that I can not even get that in choosing a candidate in the political party that is most aligned with my views of how the country should run, I may not even caucus.

All I want is a simple majority to say who wins and who loses. Not in just the caucuses and primaries, but also in the National Election coming on November 4th.

Why take the power away from the people? Before folks may not have been able to go to see all the candidates, and that made the Electoral College system justified. In this century we have the media, the internet, telephones, automobiles, airplanes, and whatever else people may use to make an informed decision about a candidate.

In some ways the primary and caucus system works in that it has in some part weeded out some candidates. Yet, here we are with Nevada Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign out there trying to play down the fact that even though Clinton won the majority, she lost where it supposedly counted, with the delegates. But no. A convention on April 19th determines the actual delegates appropriated to the candidates. They are not really appropriated by proportion of votes, but by people in the party who will choose who they feel should be candidate.

Here is a question for Obama Supporters.
Would you still not vote for Clinton if the ticket was Clinton/Obama 2008 or Obama/Clinton 2008? If the answer is no to both,then you are not listening to Obama at all. I support Clinton, but I took the time to read everything on Obama's website as well as his Audacity of Hope book. I think he will be a good President in 8 years but not now at age 46 (my age too)
Have you stopped to think even for a second that Clinton and Obama supporters are being played by the likes of people like Carl Rove.
I predicte that it will be
Clinton/Obama 2008 and they will win.

If Republicans were concerned about Obama, they'd be trying to stop him in the primaries, not Hillary.

rd

Bill was great so I think Hillary will be equally as great or better (with his experienced support) Good work!

wikipidiot.org

Some of the comments here assume that, in the general election, everyone who does not vote for the Republican will vote for anyone the Dems nominate. That's not reality. Aside from the possibility of a third-party candidate, voters who are unimpressed by the two nominees may just stay home. Just like those who took a pass in 2004 because they didn't want to take responsibility for either candidate: Dislike of Bush rarely translated into faith in John Kerry. Crossover voters like Obama because he has made a bid for us. Clinton has not.

There are also lots of disaffected small-government Republicans who are willing to come back to a less Bush-like candidate on that side.

and if you're from Illinois (and I doubt that you're from NY and voted for Hillary, you sound like a Repub), then you would say I wasted my vote on Obama for the Senate, go Obama '08?

Silly Repub.

rd

They were voting for county delegates, and Hillary won more by a substantial margin, the same as she will in Feb. 5 and beyond. I expect Obama will win by a similar margin in SC.

rd

Anyone dismayed that the Clinton's are always whining or playing the victim? First, NH scheduled too close to Iowa, the press is unfair, then casino caucus locations are not fair, the delegate count is wrong. They whine, wheedle and weasel their way around the country, and we are supposed to be inspired? Give me a break, enough already! Senator Clinton just received my vote to be elected to a 6 year term in the US Senate through 2012. I guess that was a wasted vote.....I won't make that mistake again.....Obama '08!

Sounds like the Clinton spin machine fooled the press - there is no actual vote totals - so Obama could have actually had more people actually vote for him - Hillary won "county delegates" - which is basically meaningless.

How could the press get this so wrong and the headlines are wrong.

Obama won Nevada. It is pretty simple.

I hope that Edwards stays in the race. The only reason why he is not #1 or #2 is because of the virtual MSM blackout on his candidacy. And with the "herd" mentality of the people in this country, many people are choosing between Obama and Clinton because they think those are their only two choices.

I am so waiting for the day when we do away with the electoral college system and go to a "one man one vote" winner take all system of electing our President. This should be in both the primaries and the general election. We also need to do away with the craziness of the primaries. Some states caucusing and some voting is insane. And the fact that three small states have a majority of the say because they are first is also insane. Until we do something about how we hold our elections, the MSM and the political parties will continue to have the power to tell us who our candidates will be.

Who among the Democrats truly won the state of Nevada?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1593

~

JPRS is right. Hillary will be a disaster for the Dems. Repubs and Independents will crawl across miles of broken glass to vote agaisnt her and intelligent Dems know she is just Bush-lite and don't support such a two-faced phony.

druid73, I'd add that Atwater is dead and Rove is on the margins of his own party these days.

In terms of the "I've already been vetted claim" -- I don't really buy this. In 2000 Clinton ran with the support of a powerful and well-oiled Democratic machine in a state which tends to lean heavily in the blue column. The cultural war attacks that can sink a Democratic opponent in a battleground state don't get traction in a state like New York where GOP voters tend to be more of the Rockefeller Republican, socially moderate variety. In 2006 she was an incumbent running with huge cash advantages, the anti-Bush wind at her back and no real viable opponent. The GOP committed its energy and attention elsewhere.

The big question is how will things play out in 2008?

If McCain wins the GOP nomination the biggest challenge for him will be persuading the GOP base that he is the lesser of evils. This isn't a given, but a Clinton candidacy could provide sufficient motivation. He will also have real advantages in terms of independent support versus Clinton, which is vital towards winning most battleground states.

I think Clinton could make a play for a state like Florida, but many other battleground states would likely be McCain's for the taking.

Obama on the other hand has the ability to put states like Virginia in play, and he will also force the GOP to commit money in reliably red states like Alabama. He won't win these Red states, but he will be able to keep his margins in the single digits. In a national election if a campaign is able to put its opponents on the defensive on many fronts this makes an electoral challenge less of a challenge.

Both Democratic candidates are wild-cards, but Clinton's high negatives amongst independents and likely GOP voters mean that she will have a much smaller growth opportunity in terms of electoral votes.

Every candidate in this race has pressure points -- Clinton's biggest challenge is that she has not been moving New Democratic voters into her column. She is building her candidacy almost entirely on the basis of reliable party-line voters. That will present real challenges for her candidacy in a general election. I don't think that these challenges are insurmountable, but as a general election candidate I don't think she can assume that negative attitudes towards Bush on the part of independents will necessarily carryover to the next GOP nominee.

harried: These early states are not that much in the way the delegates for the Dems are allocated, stopping Hillary is what it is about for a whole bunch of the Repubs. Notice how some Posters here are giving the state hell, where they lost, no surprise. Anyway, I urge you and others to support whoever you wish, the main thing to do is be sure to vote and try to get others to do the same.

Oh right, he probably didn't even know who Hillary was until Bush was elected. Nice try.

Republican hate machine tried to stop her. She's vetted. She has weathered everything they can conjure up. They haven't begun on Obama yet, and sorry to say, they hate him for his policies just as much. There will be no kumbaya hand holding from them in the general election. It will be ugly. It's for big stakes.

rd

druid 73 and rd: Actually, Rove was hardly known at all nationally until 2000. He owned a very lucrative direct mail operation in Austin. He had run some statewide races in Alabama, and Texas (Clements for Gov in '86, and of course Dubya in '94). In 2000, as you may know, Rove was quite busy. He had no involvement in Lazio v. Clinton. In 2006, he proabably gave some solicited advice over the phone to Spencer's campaign, but Rove is way too smart to be involved in that debacle.

Time to sign off. Good night from Texas!!

The Nevada Democratic Party has posted a "clarification" on its web site acknowledging that the AP's national convention delegate projections are correct.

"The Nevada Democratic Party and its officials have taken great effort to maintain our neutrality in the presidential campaign and the integrity of our process. Today, two out of three Nevadans who caucused chose a Democrat instead of a Republican for president. That is an overwhelming majority vote for a new direction. Just like in Iowa, what was awarded today were delegates to the County Convention, of which Senator Clinton won the majority. No national convention delegates were awarded. That said, if the delegate preferences remain unchanged between now and April 2008, the calculations of national convention delegates being circulated by the Associated Press are correct. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."

Clinton campaign has not mentioned the Rezko mansion property thing.

Also, I thought I saw where Hsu donated to Obama as well. Or was it some other person caught with his hand in a cookie jar donating to Obama?

Bottom line, they give the donations away when the person giving is caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Hillary said she is having campaign vet donators better.

It happens to everyone raising a lot of money, Obama included had to give some away didn't he?

rd

As far as I've heard, Rove and his mentor Lee Atwater have pretty much shaped or at least influenced the GOP campaign strategy for much of the past 30 years.

Also, Rove and Co. had a vested interest in seeing HRC lose her US Senate races in NY and I might be mistaken, but I believe Rove DID participate in attack strategy in both of HRC's Senate races (unsuccessfully).

I love the comment about the Rezko story.

"It isn't yet an issue that can hurt Obama, but it will be once put through the GOP attack machine."

The omission at the end of that sentence should read "by the Clinton campaign."

Any one serving up Norman Hsu $1 million campaign donations tonight?

They tried to stop her NY Senate run.

rd

rd--- When has Hillary ever run against the "Rove slime machine"?? You seem to be quite confused on which races he has been involved in. Or, are you using him as a generic label for any GOP campaign??

katefranklin: Hillary is running as experience candidate against Obama and Edwards (including proven experience surviving Rove slime machine).

She will run against McCain or Romney on fundamental differences in policy - get out of Iraq responsibly, government role in economy, critical appointments to Supreme Court for future of many rights, and on and on. The differences couldn't be more profound.

rd

In most cases they don't even need a grain of truth.

For those of you who are interested in the real problems with Obama's policy positions(rather than the fluff that is usually reported on all candidates) I'd suggest Paul Krugman's blog over at the NYT:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

Not all of Dr. Krugman's blog entries are related to Senator Obama, but he makes some very valid points about holes in Obama's policies

Druid: I agree that the GOP attacks will be more potent than what one would experience in a primary, but there is no basis to suggest that Hillary is better positioned to handle the attacks than Obama. I further agree that Ohio gives us the best chance to "expand the field", but that is due to the GOP being in shambles there. Regardless of the Strickland "endorsement", HRC is no better positioned there in a general election than Obama would be. Perhaps the opposite, since she is so divisive. Unlikely many 2000/2004 GOP voters would support her. May even motivate more to show up.

As I said, it probably won't hurt him until AFTER it has gone through the GOP attack machine. In case you haven't noticed these people need only a grain of truth to tear down even the most ethical of opponents.

Druid, thanks for the link. I can't help but notice you failed to include the following in your quote, its from paragraph 2 of the article in question...

"The Illinois senator isn't accused of any wrongdoing. And there's no evidence Obama knew contributions to his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign came from schemes Rezko is accused of orchestrating."

Sorry about the double negative. I need to work on my grammar.

cammo:

First off I disagree about the Clinton's prowess at attacks (or anyone's) during a primary. It just hurts everyone in the party if you explode the party in order to win (and contrary to what many Obama supporters would like to believe the Clintons aren't yet to that point).

However, in a general election all bets are off. There you can attack without fear because the goal is less about switching voters to your side than it is about just suppressing the turnout of your opponents supporters.

If you read the entire article, Druid, then you know there isn't a single negative word about Obama. How many indictments has Hillary been named in? Can we count that high?

#1 There weren't any votes in Nevada. It was a caucus. So no candidate won the "popular vote".

#2 Clinton owned the party establishment in Nevada. They were the ones who decided how delegates are divided. All Obama did was play by their rules. (Very well, I might add.)

#3 Can you say "Duh", Hillary?

Local NBC affilate in Dallas, just led off 10 o'clock news with "Hillary Clinton far surpassed Obama in votes in Nevada, but a quirk (sp) in the system, has both camps arguing over who won more National Delegates". No surprise. Now Texans who don't read NYT or the Post (99.9%) will believe Hillary won handily. Druid, there is no greater "attack machine" than the Clintonistas. If Barack can withstand that, he can stand up to Bob Perry and the swiftboaters.

Here's the headline:

Sun-Times Exclusive: Obama surfaces in Rekzo's federal corruption case
Source confirmed Obama is the unnamed "political candidate" referred to in document which outlines case against Rezko

and the link:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/749138,obama20web.article

It isn't yet an issue that can hurt Obama, but it will once put through the GOP attack machine.

Let's get down to brass tacks on Hillary's electability. She's running as the "experience" candidate against Obama. Now think about the "experience" equation vis a vis John McCain or Mitt Romney. Bonk! They will handily expose her as the complete charlatan that she is. Not a shred of executive experience. Junior Senator. Sen. Obama can at least differentiate himself against any of his potential Republican opponents. Hillary simply can not.

And Ohio would seal the deal on a Dem victory

druid73, while I agree with your presumably sarcastic observation at 10:52, I do have to point out that HRC insulted the IA voters after her drubbing there. Secondly, what's with the insinuation in your 10:59 post? If you have facts, state them. If all you have is innuendo, save it for drudge.

Ohio

rd

cammo:

Obama's ability to expand the playing field is predicated on the assumption that he won't be ground into hamburger by the GOP attack machine. I think that assumption may be too far a reach, particularly given the stories now getting a bit more traction out of Chicago.

South Carolina will be interesting, rd. I just hope it isn't ugly

Ah yes, when your candidate doesn't win, insult the voters of the state you lost.

South Carolina will be very interesting, druid73.

rd

I would say JRE supporters go to Obama by about a 3:2 ratio...enough to put Obama in very good position to defeat HRC. The vast majority of JRE's supporters, such as myself, are from his 2004 run. The whole media thing about his supporters being "lunch bucket Dems" who are likely to go to HRC, rather than "wine and cheese" Dems who support Obama, is ludicrous. It is change vs. status quo. Lastly, no one can argue that Obama doesn't give Dems an opportunity to expand the electoral playing field. Can anyone seriously name one state she wins that Kerry or Gore did not?? Arkansas included. Remember, she is a Goldwater Girl from Illinois, not a sax player from Hot Springs

Chris, I simply don't know why you don't come and say it, Nevada and Utah are MORMON states. This is a religion that didn't even allow blacks to enter as full members or to hold positions in their priesthood until very recently. They still teach that African's have the "mark of Cain". So, it was out and out racism coupled with the worst of deranged radical feminism that gave Clinton Nevada. This ought to be more a public embarrasment than a victory - sort akin to winning the endorsement of the KKK.

ralphdaugherty:

I think you are correct about where Edwards votes would go if he dropped out. They would NOT go overwhelmingly to Obama. In fact based on the movements in both national and state polling it looks like MORE of Edwards supporters end up with Clinton than Obama.

In any state or national poll/primary/caucus where Edwards is doing/has done well Clinton's numbers are low. When Edwards' numbers are low Clinton's are high. Obama sits around 25% to 35% on average without much change. That just isn't a high enough number for Obama to win (particularly on and after Feb. 5)

Concerning Edwards needing to drop out and his votes going to Obaba (which I think would be more of a split), in NV vote, Hillary got more votes than Obama and Edwards combined.

rd

Why does anyone rely on an exit poll to state a fact? One of the polls this evening had a margin of error of 7 for the Dems and 6 for the Reps. That means a number could be off by 14 points or 12 points. When you talk about 50% of the voters thinking X, the correct answer could be anything from 43 to 57 or 44 to 56. Shouldn't the margin of error be reported in the main part of the story so the reader is aware it doesn't mean anything?

"folks who do not devour politics like we do, will believe HRC won this one. Certainly that will be the main headline in SC, and across the rest of America."

Local Fox affiliate just covered the win; the politics guy called it a big win for HRC. The anchor brought up the delegate issue, pointing out BHO won more delegates. 'Politics' guy said "Make no mistake, this is a big win for Hillary."

Uh... OK.

mark in austin writes
"The Romney victory in NV is more meaningful because he actually netted some delegates."

My understanding is that NV delegates are not committed until April something. A more detailed explanation straight from the horse's mouth would be worthwhile.

Unfortunatley, folks who do not devour politics like we do, will believe HRC won this one. Certainly that will be the main headline in SC, and across the rest of America. I am an ardent John Edwards supporter, but unless he WINS in SC, I think he should move on to another calling. What is fascinating is that the mainstream media seems "confused" as to whom his supporters will go-- no doubt it will be Obama. I am originally from Arlington, VA, now live in Dallas, and all JRE supporters I have spoken to in both places say Obama is their second choice. Hey Hey Ho Ho, status quo has got to go!!!

I hope the Obama supporters that say they won't support Hillary if she wins the nomination will reconsider. Hillary may be your enemy now but if your truly a Democrat lets bury the hatchet come November.

Well there you have it folks. The Obama supporters like the principles of democracy ONLY when it works for their candidate. Anyone here remember the last guy who insisted he won even though Al Gore got more votes?

Clinton got more votes PERIOD. Regardless of how the delegate math works the honorable thing for Obama to have done would be to concede rather than issue a snippy statement and slink back to Chicago.

I was a Biden supporter and was pretty much on the fence about the three remaining candidates. This lack of a concession speech from Obama (combined with his non-concession speech after NH) has sealed the deal for me. There is NO WAY IN HELL I would vote for Obama even if he makes it to the general election. I'll vote for a write in candidate before I vote for a sore loser like Obama.

The Nevada Democratic chairman said it reminas to be determined. Current 13-12 is a projection. But it sounds like it will be 13-12 split regardless which one ends up with the 13.

rd

So, why are virtually all media now reporting Obama winning 13-12? I do realize that delegate calculations can change between now and their convention but that was always true but based on the current rules and numbers and expected calculations Obama leads 13-12. Right?
Posted by: zbob99 | January 19, 2008 09:58 PM
_________________________________________

Right!

So, why are virtually all media now reporting Obama winning 13-12? I do realize that delegate calculations can change between now and their convention but that was always true but based on the current rules and numbers and expected calculations Obama leads 13-12. Right?

Given the uncertainty and very real possibility that Obama won more delegates than Clinton in Iowa, why are the newspapers all leading with unambiguous states like "Clinton defeats Obama in Nevada." Shouldn't journalists show a little more care and precision rather than anointing a victor that may in fact not be a victor.

PS Clinton's statements that we should all unite in November behind her are incorrect for at least this voter. I am as liberal as they come and supported Bill Clinton for 8 years wholeheartedly, but in November I won't support this campaign of dirty tricks that she has run.

I think I'm the only one that mentioned Rove in this thread. I'm not sure if the question is referring to me or not, but I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

rd

What's with the CLINTON and ROVE, CLINTON and BUSH stuff?
Is this "HOOK UP CLINTON WITH A NEOCON" bumper sticker week or something?

oops, that is "victory" - and NBC just called it for McCain, too.

cnn.com is predicting a vistory for McCain. Am I right that SC is winner take all - so McCain not only wins a pivotal state, but beats Romney in delegates won today?

One of the statistics that needs to be watched because if it becomes solid in the Democratic primary contests there is no reason why it won't hold in the national election, The one split that is a non party split is the man-woman split. If Clinton does in fact get more than 55% of the Woman vote in the primaries, barring a major event, it's a done deal.
Watch that one, it's the big one this time around.

everybody's got his arithmetic wrong. Prez Bill said Obama's voters counted 5 TIMES as much as Hillary's, so I figure Obama should get just shy of 5 times the number of NV delegates Clinton gets. 'cause the president told me so.

"between she and Obama"? What happened to "between her and Obama"? Does this newspaper have no literate editors?

With Hillary we are guaranteed more drama,incompetence, corruption and bitter division. Thanks Bushes and Clintons. I can't wait to immigrate elsewhere.

Meldupree, try puting these two things together:

This post:
Anyway, the electability factor still looms large for HRC and she seems still quite unelectable. If she becomes the DNC nominee, then the GOP will win the WHite House Posted by: meldupree | January 19, 2008 08:53 PM

With this announcement:
Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby issued this statement tonight: "Today, two out of three Nevadans who caucused chose a Democrat instead of a Republican for president."

McC is leading in SC. RG is running at 2%.

I hope this stands up.

I never watched the debates before and I find it very interesting that Obama and Edwards try every which way to attack Hillary. I firmly believe Hillary is the best choice for the Democratic Party and not just because I am a woman but because Hillary not only speaks of change but she also tells how it will be done. It's a good thing we live in the United States because we definitely have "freedom of choice." Being President of the United States definitely takes a person with a lot of knowledge and the pay isn't near as high as most of the CEO's.
GO HILLARY!!!!!
Anita - Phoenix

RB: The Repub strategy of knocking Hillary out of the nomination, will not be KNOWN until we get the results Of The Super Dooper Tuesday. I am confident it will not work.

Posted by: lylepink | January 19, 2008 08:36 PM
___________________________________

That's really not what it's about lyle.
What it's about is getting Obama, one on one, with the Rove slime machine in the national election. Hillary is in front now, what would really drive the Rove/NEOCON thugs to desperate tactics is an Edwards , Clinton, Obama finish in SC. Then it will be flying turd time for sure!

Why do any of y'all think this caucus is meaningful? It results in one or wo net delegates either way, from a state where local issues overwhelm national ones.

The Romney victory in NV is more meaningful because he actually netted some delegates.

I am watching SC, which tells us more.

lyle, you may live in one of those blue areas where HRC actually helps Ds down ticket, but many of us do not. When you read people from all the red and purple states tell you that they see HRC as a drag and you see elected Ds in red and purple states endorse BHO you have to understand that it is not a "conspiracy" but the expression of fear of political failure.

Well, it appears HRC takes this one too. But the "fuzzy math" in NV goes to Obama. Anyway, the electability factor still looms large for HRC and she seems still quite unelectable. If she becomes the DNC nominee, then the GOP will win the WHite House while the Dems increase their majorities in both houses of Congress. More news later boys and girls . . .

"The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008," said Jill Derby, the chairwoman of the state party. "We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."

In other words, "the fix is in"?

Can you say Katherine Harris?

Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby issued this statement tonight: "Today, two out of three Nevadans who caucused chose a Democrat instead of a Republican for president. That is an overwhelming majority vote for a new direction. Just like in Iowa, what was awarded today were delegates to the County Convention. No national convention delegates were awarded."

RB: The Repub strategy of knocking Hillary out of the nomination, will not be KNOWN until we get the results Of The Super Dooper Tuesday. I am confident it will not work.

Congratulations to Chris.

He has posted two updates, as we speak.

Pam,

I hadn't thought of it like that. So. it will be intersting because Hill will have to deal with the two of them for their delegates.

rfpiktor, Mark,

I think JRE stays in - based on the post on his website after the Nevada loss. Obama might have a reason to "wait his turn" - Edwards is on a mission. He won't get another turn so there's nothing for him to jeopardize.

rfpiktor, Mark,

I think JRE stays in - based on the post on his website after the Nevada loss. Obama might have a reason to "wait his turn" - Edwards is on a mission. He won't get another turn so there's nothing for him to jeopardize.

O-Bambi is toast.

Bill Clinton did not denigrate Obama. Just like the robocalls concerning "Barack Hussein Obama", remember Democrats the Rove Republicans pull dirty tricks, beware Republicans trying to tear the Democratic party apart.

They want very much to knock Hillary out in the primaries. Obama is a wet dream for Rove. They destroyed war heroes McCain and Kerry before that. They will have no problem destroying Obama, it would be very ugly.

rd

Mark,

I used to know. Now anything can happen.

Looks to me Hill will be the nominee. Obama did a mini-concession speech in the Nevada debate.

The Democratic machine asked him politely to wait his turn and he acceded.

Something similar hapenned with Mac in 2000 when the Bush machine asked him politely to wait his turn.

I still think Hillary is unelectable. The people are fed up of dynasties.

This is a measure of how screwy these caucuses are. Clinton has so far won the only two "normal" primaries in NH and MI. The Obama effort to spin this as a victory. If it was a victory how come he slunk off home even before the final vote was called. If it was a victory he'd be giving victory speeches. Get real people and see if they are talking about a Obama victory in tomorrows media.

From Chris's post:
"This is about delegates but it's also about what people are voting for and who they think the best president would be," Clinton said in Las Vegas.

Indeed. We have one candidate who is competitive statewide and one candidate who is competitive in certain regions; dare I say Democratic strongholds? If your goal is to win in the general election - as a party - does it not seem important to consider which candidate will be more competitive outside traditionally strong Dem areas? I wonder how Senator Clinton would respond to such a question, were it posed her.

If you link to this web site "Real Clear Politics"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

you will see the Clinton holds the lead in total delegates so far.

You should have checked with our Nevada State Democratic Party before making statements about who won what delegates. National delegates were NOT determined by today's precinct caucuses. National delegates will be voted on at our state convention in April.

rfpiktor, I think he WILL stay in AND continue to bleed support.

I am guessing that what we saw in IA is probably true in the plains and the mountains and the southwest - HRC is not the second favorite choice of many Ds.

But I think that the left and right coasts, as we on the Gulf refer to the edges, may have different political demographics. HRC may be a stronger second fave in these areas.

Look at which D pols have flocked to BHO and you see the red and purple state Ds.
The coasts have blue states where I think HRC is not treated with suspicion.

And another factor may come into play in the Southeast.

In short, I dunno.

rfpiktor, I think he WILL stay in AND continue to bleed support.

I am guessing that what we saw in IA is probably true in the plains and the mountains and the southwest - HRC is not the second favorite choice of many Ds.

But I think that the left and right coasts, as we on the Gulf refer to the edges, may have different political demographics. HRC may be a stronger second fave in these areas.

Look at which D pols have flocked to BHO and you see the red and purple state Ds.
The coasts have blue states where I think HRC is not treated with suspicion.

And another factor may come into play in the Southeast.

In short, I dunno.

I heard H. Clinton proclaim the Democrats would all be united in November. Don't count on it, Bill Clinton has shown all Democrats how mean and evil he is by denigrating Sen. Obama at every opportunity. I, for one, will never support Bill and Hillary's power trip. I hope all Sen. Obama's supporters will not vote for Billary is she/he is the candidate. John McCain and/or Mike Huckabee are better human beings than the Clintons.

I heard H. Clinton proclaim the Democrats would all be united in November. Don't count on it, Bill Clinton has shown all Democrats how mean and evil he is by denigrating Sen. Obama at every opportunity. I, for one, will never support Bill and Hillary's power trip. I hope all Sen. Obama's supporters will not vote for Billary is she/he is the candidate. John McCain and/or Mike Huckabee are better human beings than the Clintons.

Love this blog, but Chris, do get the pronouns right, per "sensible." Always, between HER.

Mark,

Should Edwards continue after a S.C. loss?

Will his voters go to Hill or Obama.

Is it now an ego trip to nowhere?

Either way, NV is essentially worth one [1] or two [2] delegate votes at the DNConv.

Thus, the only news here is JRE's "slip-and-fall".

Woops.

"between she and Obama" should be between "her and Obama"

I'm not surprised Chris because looking at
http://nvdems08 Obama won most of the counties decisively.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.